Talk:Wounded Knee incident

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This page is within the scope of WikiProject South Dakota, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on South Dakota on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] Aftermath?

Where is the aftermath? The prosecutions? The surrender? The negotiations led by Kunstler? This article is very bare bones. Its not about bias, its about the fact that there is a lot of information missing. I would help edit this but don't have time at present but this is a dissapointing entry for such an important 'incident'. Seth J. Frantzman (talk) 08:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


Wow...I wondered why this was so slanted in favor of the government, then I looked at the history and found it's been lifted verbatim from a US Marshall website. This REALLY needs a more neutral stance. A Runyon 16:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

This incident/Issue is one of the most controversial and inspiring events that has occured in Indian country in contemporary American history in the view of many American Indians. Documentaries such as Tatoo on My Heart and some others have tried to capture the intangible spiritual catharsis that Wounded Knee played a pivotol role in the 1970's.

It is also a very complex issue. Wikipedia's nuetrality position would be best served by reviewing the view of the US Marshal's and other government entities involved including the 82cnd Airborne, FBI, South Dakota National Guard, BIA PD, OST PD, and Special Operations Group of the DOJ executing "OPERATION GARDEN PLOT" (The NY Times exposed this in the 1980's) but also the views of the assimilationists represented by then OST President Richard Wilson, his auxilliary force known as the GOONS, and others like Webster Two Hawks. As Well as the view of traditionalists who were not part of AIM but supported it at the time-Frank Fools Crow, Matthew King, etc. And then AIM and OSCRO leaders such as Pedro Bissonette, Russell Means, Dennis Banks, Carter Camp, Stan Holder, Clyde Bellecourt....

To put this in its historical and significant implications here, in a nuetral relatively objective format will take some doing but Wikipedia can do it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wolakota (talk • contribs) 21:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a complex issue, and I wonder if a few paragraphs here can even do this story justice. There are so many side issues and layers of corruption and cover-ups that someone would need a great deal of knowledge to even try to form an opinion, much less report the facts without bias. A Runyon 20:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leonard Peltier

The Leonard Peltier article links to here, so I put a link to it. A Runyon 06:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed POV header

A big thanks to the anonymous user who rewrote this article--I've removed the POV header. A Runyon 18:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Added POV header

Really the language in this article is very unencyclopedic and is essentially about U.S. martials, not the Wounded Knee incident. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.199.14.222 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed... This article's just sad, biased and lacking any useful substance. It's in dire need of a rewrite. galar71 10:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Argh...someone has gutted the rewrite from last month. It's not as bad as it was when I put the POV up the first time, but it's basically useless now. A Runyon 21:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

This article should be erased from wikipedia. The tone is entirely biased and inappropriate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.97.184.242 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I highly recommend that interested individuals read Lakota Woman by Mary Crow-Dog, which has several chapters that include her personal account of the events at the Wounded Knee Incident as an AIM member.

[edit] This article is terrible

I don't what it looked like back in June 06, when people were complaining about a pro-government bias. But now it's got a huge pro-AIM bias. It makes many conspiratorial and blatantly NPOV claims and accusations that are totally unsubstantiated.Verklempt 01:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Things I've done, things to do

First off, I re-added the POV tag. It was added in one of the many edits by Berkbuns or Zimmerzr, not sure which (I left notices at their talk pages on using Show Preview to prevent this from happening).

Secondly, there needs to be a mention of the claims that the AIM activists only intended to air grievances with certain people at Wounded Knee (owners of the museum and trading station, I believe) and then leave. There is an argument that they only stayed because FBI Agents nearby heard a shotgun fire and immediately surrounded the area to restore order; this move did not allow the AIM group to disperse and thus led to an escalation in the situation. --Edwin Herdman 06:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, the article needs some work. With a little time and patience to get round the huge cultural fog that no doubt surrounds this incident, a very interesting article could be created. I was listening to "Thundercrow" this morning on the radio, an eye witness of the event. What she said key's in with what's here ... the APC's, etc. Of course I'm only getting her perspective. I've never heard it from a US Marshalls perspective, or anyone else, so am unqualified to edit in a balanced POV DJ Barney 16:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I never saw the seige of the Warsaw Ghetto told from the perspective of SS Death Squad members... does that make every description I've ever seen biased? Or perhaps the fact that articles on lynching do not include the point of view of the KKK? I say that their POV is not only unnecessary, but its presence indeed renders the article biased. --Bodybagger 02:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Should not the title be "Wounded Knee siege"?

Forgive me for being an ignorant European, but to call this an "incident" seems blatantly NPOV. Throughout thousands of years of European history these things are consistently called Sieges. Why is this called an incident, like when someone steps on a loose stone and almost hurts his ankle? To get a NPOV one must start with changing the title, in my POV... (it cannot be called occupation since the people of the town were not in feud with the alleged occupants, it can only be called a siege). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.181.109 (talk) 16:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

"Siege" implies an army assaulting a town. While some people might view this incident as a siege, there are many others who would take issue with that view. Those folks would argue that there was a legitimate law enforcement response, and that the people occupying the town were not the residents of the town, but outside agitators. Hence "incident" is more NPOV than "siege" or "occupation".Verklempt 21:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

If you dare call this atrocity a "legitimate law enforcement response" and call the people who were under seige "outside agitators," you would probably feel very comfortable calling the liquidation of the Warsaw Ghetto a "legitimate law enforcement response" to the insurrection of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. In both sieges, a people of a race/religion were isolated and confined to an area (be it a ghetto or a reservation) and their stand was crushed by lethal force from police and military forces (be it Gestapo and SS or US Marshals and National Guard). The only difference is that one group now has a powerful political lobby. Try seeing it from that point of view and you may understand why calling either of these sieges a "legitimate law enforcement response" might make a person sound like a hate-mongering Nazi. --Bodybagger 01:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPOV. You might also look up "Godwin's Law".Verklempt 21:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Not at all. There is no comparison, Bodybagger. First, American Indians are not isolated or confirmed to any reservation. They are free to come and go as they please and always have been in contemporary American history. Secondly, the liquidation of the Warsaw Ghetto was to eliminate Jews whereas the response to Wounded Knee was intended to make arrests. You're comparing apples to oranges. Equinox137 (talk) 02:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Unlike the outsiders occupying Iraq, the "outsiders" of WK were invited there because of an incredible string on deaths on the rez.
I agree with Wolakota that the job can be done, but only if no POV is allowed to dominate. The complete "facts" -- including what people carried in their hearts -- will never be known.
In that spirit, I suggest that a rewrite be done with a skeleton of indisputable facts; then the disputed questions of fact can be listed along with pointers to existing evidence - so that readers can finish the story for themselves.
It might help if people can agree to write the article so that it honors ALL the people who died -- sadly, needlessly -- in that era. As for blame? there's plenty for everybody. Twang 00:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


I am not sure the word 'siege' should be so politisized. A siege does not imply that this was not also a 'legitimate' law enforcement response. There was also a siege of Waco. A siege merely implies that something is cordoned off and the people inside are under siege, I don't see how it means it is pro or anti-Aim in the terminology. The warsaw ghetto uprising did result in a 'siege' of the ghetto by the Nazis. From the Nazi point of view the siege of the ghetto was a response by the army to an uprising. So what? I think the appropriate title is the Siege of Wounded Knee, that is how it is known in popular culture. Who calls it an 'incident'? Of course the U.S Marshalls had to souround Wounded Knee, but they should be commended for not overunning the place the way Waco was, which would have resulted in the deaths of many activists. Seth J. Frantzman (talk) 08:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Dictionary definition of "siege": The surrounding and blockading of a city, town, or fortress by an army attempting to capture it. That is clearly not accurate here. Leave the NPOV term alone. What non-encyclopedic writers label the incident is irrelevant to NPOV.Verklempt (talk) 20:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Response of the larger society

Is missing? The incident can also be classified within the greater civil rights movement.--Jackkalpakian (talk) 00:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I came to this page after thinking about the movie Thunderheart, and having done some very quick reading around I agree this article is missing a couple of important topics. First, as Jackkalpakian says, an account of the public reaction. Or, even better, the consequences of the event for the reservation and AIM. For instance, there is no mention of Leonard Peltier who is in jail and apparently considered a political prisoner by amnesty international (http://www.amnesty.org/en/report/info/AMR51/160/1999). Also, there are many sites which though not authoritative, including the movie Thunderheart, link this incident to uranium and other resources that lie within the reservation. This seems to be very significant as a possible cause for the events and should be included. And finally, the movie Thunderheart :) I couldn't believe that this was not mentioned in the article since this is clearly part of the cultural response to the incident. Looking through the history there has been more info in this article before, but I think someone should add a lot more... there is a lot more that definitely should be in this article that has been "left out". I really don't know enough to do it myself :( ScyllaMutt (talk) 08:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Wilson Dillema & Article Bias

I just wanted to say that noone has referred to Richard Wilson by his nickname "Dick" in all the articles I've seen. Also this article is a tad one sided. I'd consider looking into other articles for more information as well, particularly "Alcatraz, Wounded Knee, and Beyond: The Nixon and Ford Administrations Responsd to Native American Protest". Granted that this is more of a conservative view on the matter but I believe you should check out both sides of the story --129.15.127.253 (talk) 04:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure calling him 'Dick' which is the way he was known to his friends and family is one sided. Either Richard or Dick is appropriate. Seth J. Frantzman (talk) 08:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)